The recent judgment of Mr Justice Peter Jackson that doctors and relatives do not always need to consult the court before withdrawing medical treatment from a terminally ill patient has been reported under headlines labelling it a “right to die” case. This is wrong and risks conflating two quite different situations in the lay reader’s mind.

The UK government policy papers outlining the legal mechanisms for engaging with the EU after Brexit have come in for protracted criticism. With reciprocity a key element of settling disputes in family law, Eleri Jones, barrister at 1 Garden Court, explains the options.

We’ve noticed that in a recent post the Researching Reform blog has highlighted the fact that it is possible for a parent to make an application for an Emergency Protection Order, an emergency order that is usually only made by social services to remove a child from home.

There is a very concerning piece abut the National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) on Buzzfeed : A Major UK Domestic Violence Organisation Faces Accusations Of Failing Victims And Taking Inappropriate Payments.

Lara Prendergast wrote a piece in The Spectator last week that ran under this headline :The sinister power of Britain’s family courts – Even if decisions are obviously cruel and unjust, the public is often not allowed to know.

The term ‘private’ is not defined. Plainly it is something different from ‘open court’; but does it mean entirely secret, or confidential, or does it mean only that public may be admitted if the court agrees?